81–90 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CFC-11 is cheaper then alternatives. If I'm a shady factory owner making cheap fridges for shady countries, who is gonna complain?
Shady countries? Those are people and regular families...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in one of those "shady" countries and I wish that I was never born.
Please get help to realize your value and the opportunities you have to contribute positively to your area and the world. You can be a force for good if you choose. This assumes you're not just trolling, but actually, it applies if you are trolling as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism? In the 1980's, the Soviet Union had an estimated growth-rate of CFC production at 18% annually (estimated because they couldn't be bothered to measure it themselves accurately) which by 1990 would've accounted for 50% of global CFC production.
Maybe I am using capitalism in too broad a sense: I meant to express that if the use of CFC gives one competitor an advantage over another, they may go right ahead and do it, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism constantly prides itself on how great competition is, but competition actually makes this problem worse, not better.
Capitalism, if market agrees that ecology is important, can encourage competition. Soviet-style economy didn't offer a choice.
Government running the economy didn't help either. Government-worker-environmentalist won't fine government-worker-factory-worker. Even if they did, it's basically paying from one your own pocket to another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CFCs don't concentrate at the poles. The reason they have the strongest effect there, and not locally where they're produced or globally in the stratosphere, is because the stratosphere is very dry and only in the extreme cold of a polar winter can stratospheric clouds form. The particles in these clouds catalyse the reactions that allow a each free chlorine molecule to destroy many ozone molecules. That's also why t…
That seems like a valid explanation for the "start" of a hole if there was a continuous stream of _only_ CFCs and chlorine. Doesn't the ozone gas itself get blown around in the wind also? Wouldn't this mean that ozone would eventually fill the hole back up unless there was a steady stream of CFCs/chlorine to that one spot?
More CFCs also enter the polar stratosphere through this mixing, though, ready to start the cycle again next polar winter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does that idea repulse you? We see it regularly with countries high on the corruption scale. And given what we know about the tragedy of the commons, it makes sense to make money on a global tragedy (CFCs). I (a CFC producer) can make more than the loss everyone takes. Transparency International tries to uncover "shady" countries. You can see the results here: https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_…
Honestly, as a third-world citizen, I just can't fathom why anyone here would give a shit about ozone layer. We are extremely dismissive of those issues here because we care about the future of humanity and Earth a lot less that first-world populace. We have no incentive to protect the Earth so that children of first-worlders can live healthily in 2050 whenever. You fucked us all up with colonialism and whatnot, and…
I've got a shiny dollar that says they're in the northern hemisphere.
There seem to be some trails pointing towards SE asia. From the article: ”The scientists don’t know exactly who, or where, that person would be. A U.S. observatory in Hawaii found CFC-11 mixed in with other gases that were characteristic of a source coming from somewhere in eastern Asia, but scientists could not narrow the area down any further”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I am using capitalism in too broad a sense: I meant to express that if the use of CFC gives one competitor an advantage over another, they may go right ahead and do it, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism constantly prides itself on how great competition is, but competition actually makes this problem worse, not better.
If by "too broad a sense" you mean "incorrectly," then sure.
--Oxford
Did you have a different definition in mind?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism? In the 1980's, the Soviet Union had an estimated growth-rate of CFC production at 18% annually (estimated because they couldn't be bothered to measure it themselves accurately) which by 1990 would've accounted for 50% of global CFC production.
Maybe I am using capitalism in too broad a sense: I meant to express that if the use of CFC gives one competitor an advantage over another, they may go right ahead and do it, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism constantly prides itself on how great competition is, but competition actually makes this problem worse, not better.
If this is true and we found the place where it was being produced, could we be justified in destroying the facility by missile strike in order to save the world?